It's baffling how short we are on the services we need in the richest state in the richest nation. LA county alone is anticipated to have over 100,000 homeless in the next few years. That's the population of Burbank. They aren't exactly sure how much over as they couldn't do the annual count this year, but COVID related job loss and expiring benefits should be of no help.

It's not criminal if you call it a pension fund? Idk it baffles me too. I'd be entirely okay with higher taxes if they accomplished a single thing. But they don't. Also:

Step 1. Get elected.

Step 2. Convince a friend that they should really establish an organization to fight homelessness.

Step 3. Impose a gross receipts tax to fund fighting homelessness, structured as financial support for "non-profits" with an aligned charter.

Step 4. Leave office and serve on the board of the organization your "friend" established.

End result: you've essentially elected yourself a salary paid for out of the communal treasury. The "let's just throw money at the problem" type of mindset is especially susceptible to supporting these taxes. They see the problem and obviously want to support solving it but don't follow up on the flow of money.

IMO politicians should be required to be actively performing civic duties to be getting paid by tax money. And all taxes should default to being (or be required to be) repealed after a fixed term. The people must elect to re-impose the tax based on their perception of whether it was effective or not.

There's one huge issue here though, especially for a nation as liberty focused as the US. Many of the mentally ill, especially at higher levels of severity, do not seek nor desire treatment.

How would one balance the issue of disrupted mental health, with clear impediments of decision-making, against violations of personal liberty, such as with forcible commitment.

Ideally we would look at things analytically. If you've been hit by a car and are unconcious and unable to consent to treatment, you are still treated. It should be that if you are mentally ill and unable to consent to treatment, you should still be treated. If one day I lose my mind and I am on my own on the street, I would hope that I would get taken to treatment rather than be allowed to die on my own.

It's time we put virtue signalling aside when it comes to medical treatment. If someone is experiencing hypothermia and not in the right state of mind, we don't allow them to strip off their clothes in confusion even if that is the natural stress response to hypothermia, we hold them down and get them warm and well. If your friend is drunk and belligerent, you keep them home where they can sober up safely instead of letting them wander into traffic, even if they try and wrestle away. We should do the same for those suffering from mental illness, who due to their illness are in no state to care for their wellbeing, and we should do what we can to treat them until they are in the right state of mind.

I'm definitely in agreement here that there is that threshold, but what I'm not so clear about is where that threshold lies. It's one of those things which I feel the boundary is nothing but grey. However, one area where I think might be relatively easy would be the case of crime + health. Rather than jail, forcible internment in said mental health facility might be a better alternative.

On an aside, it's funny how "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" had such an impact on mental health treatment, and how mental health institutions were viewed.